Abortion Question

While people might agree with you about respecting human life, not everyone shares your belief that the unborn are alive.

While people might agree with you about respecting human life, not everyone shares your belief that war doesn't save lives.

Yes they can. I'm pro-choice and anti-most-wars. There is no contradiction at all there, just as there would be no contradiction in being anti-choice and pro-war.

 

Welll... Neitzsche said that the Religion makes a huge comeback in times of societal decline. So, christianity is part of the culture of death (hey, xianity has killed more people than hitler and crack combined.)

But anywho, whenever arguing over abortion, most people make it a religious issue. That's kinda funny seeing as abortion is not mentioned in the bible despite being practiced in those times. Funnier still, in the book of genesis Adam is not alive until god breathes into him, making the case that life begins at birth. in fact the Hebrew word for Breath and Spirit or Soul are the same (Chai, pronoucned clear-throat-noise Hai)

that and Pregnant women are killed left and right in the old testament without any regard for whether or not the fetus's are alive.

also. Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Is widely cited, although if you read this it means that the stricken woman's husband will determine the punishment for causing a fetus to be injured. If the fetus were a human being, then it would be murder, and instead of the woman's husband deciding a punishment, the man who struck the fetus would be put to death.

So, to recap, in the bible, you are alive when you breathe the life-air Chai, and until then you are not regarded as having the same worth as a human being, so would all those in the coathanger lobby please stop making shit up to justify their arguements...

Check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm to see the full list.

 

If the unborn are not "alive", please elaborate, what are they?

They are living, separate people. Please distinguish for me the difference between a baby in the womb one day before birth and after being born. There is no appreciable difference.

War takes lives. Anyone without a mental handicap realizes this. The taking of life is not justifiable. Perhaps you have some disturbing backwards notion that certain lives are more valuable than others, for instance, Americans deserve life more than Iraqis. Yes, I think that's it.

You couldn't think for yourself if you were paid to do it.

 

Now you're just playing semantic games. Just because there isn't a word clearly defined for the status of the unborn doesn't mean that they are alive in the same sense as adult human beings.

You're right, there isn't. However, the cutoff line in the eyes of the law has to be drawn somewhere. I don't believe a newborn baby is self-aware either, so it makes more sense to draw the legal cutoff at birth than at contraception.

No asshole, I'm not saying that I believe that, I'm just explaining to you why some people think the way they do about war. But of course, you're too closed-minded to even attempt to understand why the neoconservatives think the way they do.

Some people think that some wars save more lives than they take. Some people think that wars are an effective way of solving problems. Whether or not you agree with them doesn't make them stupid for believing that. And don't respond to this with an editorial on why they're wrong, because it's not MY opinion. However, I actually try to understand why people think the way they do whereas you just use moral bullying tactics that are not that different from those on the religious right.

 

Ummm, no. I really want to know what you consider the unborn to be. They are indeed alive in the very same sense that you and I are. A newborn is as helpless and dependent on others for life as a fetus is. Both have much development ahead of them. They have the inherent right to live.

Makes sense to you maybe, which isn't saying much.

I know how the sick fuck neocons think. That doesn't make me any more forgiving or less likely to object to their brutal asinine actions! I certainly wouldn't go the extra step and defend them as you do.

It does make them stupid too. Or evil.

My belief system is not based on a ridiculous book written centuries ago by some lunatics.

I'm sure there are some people who see nothing wrong with molesting children either, should I try to see their point of view too? I wouldn't be surprised if you defended those miserable psychos too.

 

Then we have a disagreement there, although in the case of the newborn it's a philosophical disagreement more than a legal disagreement.

The adult human brain runs at a speed of approximately 20,000 teraflops. A fetus, newborn human, or an animal cannot begin to compete with that. Intelligence seems to make the most sense of any factor in determining something's right to life.

Now I'm not saying that the law should allow infanticide, because as I mentioned earlier, there has to be a cutoff somewhere. But from a philosophical/psychological perspective I highly doubt that a newborn is conscious in the same sense that you and I are.

Cute, but that doesn't address the points I made.

No it doesn't. They have a different way of looking at the world. While their view may be incorrect, it's not stupid and certainly isn't evil.

And to say I'm "defending them" because I happened to share a small fraction of their views (such as the terrorists being responsible for terrorism) would be like me saying that you're defending The 700 Club because you share their views on abortion.

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes, you should try to see their point of view. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them or condone their actions, but to refuse to even try to understand them is counterproductive.

 

Yes, we do have a disagreement. Intelligence does not merit a greater right to life. Yours is truly an absurd notion to me. Should the mentally disabled have their lives ended if their relatives choose? They are not "conscious in the same sense as you and I".

Say no more. I hear you loud and clear.

Our government contains the terrorists, but it's no use talking to you about that....

You suggested I had something in common with Bible-thumping freaks.

The only productive thing in that case is capital punishment. However, I am against it because the system is flawed.

 

It depends on their condition. Most of them are conscious in some sense or another (the difference between a mentally disabled person and a normal person is much, much, much less than the difference between humans and any other species). However, I would not be opposed to a family choosing to "pull the plug" on a braindead relative with no hope of recovery, and I certainly wouldn't try to brand them as wicked for making this difficult decision.

No I didn't. I think you imagined that.

The way to correct a problem (whether a mental problem, political problem, or criminal problem) is to understand what people are thinking, why they think that way, and how to change their mind or reinforce their beliefs. Burying your head in the sand and refusing to even try to understand where the other person is coming from accomplishes nothing.

 

That is the most ludicrous statement i have EVER heard.
Implying that someone "less intelligent" has a lower life value than someone of higher intelligence? Every living thing, inside or outside the womb who eats, breathes, grows, and develops on this planet deserves an equal right to experience life to it's fullest destinal capacity. Because someones brain doesn't work "as fast as it should" is no justification for someone of "higher intelligence" to abruptly end its life without prior consultation. It is a living beings choice whether they wish to live their lives or not and NO ONE ELSES. Being alive is the only true thing you actually have in this world, and it's the most sacred possession one can EVER hold. Whether you consider an unborn fetus to be alive or not, it isn't ANYONE elses place to judge anothers right to have the chance to be alive.

life (lf)

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

 

I assume then that you've never used antibiotics, as those bacteria have the right to life. I assume you've never eaten ANYTHING in your entire life (not just meat), because whatever you ate has the right to life. Are these accurate assumptions?

To consider the death of a bacterium, or plant, or fish, or squirrel, or cow to be an equal tragedy as the death of a human is what is truly absurd.

P.S. The dictionary definition of life is well-known to me. However, it doesn't serve much purposes in philosophical discussions of whether or not something has an inherent right to life.

 

Have you ever considered that you hold this viewpoint only because you are human? Do you think a crow gives a damn if a human dies? A bear will not mourn the death of a human, however it would feel pain if it had lost a cub. Certainly it is only natural for humans to feel that they are the crux of creation and above all else, but we also have the capacity to expand that notion of importance to all creatures and that is what enlightened, compassionate people do.

 

Perhaps you need to read it again, because as i CLEARLY stated, Every living thing, inside or outside the womb who eats, breathes, grows, and develops on this planet deserves an equal right to experience life to it's fullest destinal capacity. Things that are DESTINED to be food for others consumption complete the circle of life- abortion clearly does not. Everyone naturally fights diseases, and try to eliminate western medicine for a minute, (since that is the only solution shoved down everyones throat from birth) and open your eyes to pre-western medicine- the fruit intended for food, the leaf intended for healing. All living things naturally protect themselves from disease.

Can i bust you on your blatant hypocrisy?!? You sir, JUST said "The adult human brain runs at a speed of approximately 20,000 teraflops.......Intelligence seems to make the most sense of any factor in determining something's right to life." and boldly implied that the life of a mentally disabled, a brain damaged person, a child, (be it newborn, 5 years old, 10 years old, 14 years old, 17 years old...) is a LESSER tragedy than an "adult's" loss of life! and to back that up, well I couldn't have explained it better myself.......

 

If I was some other species on earth, I doubt I'd have too many viewpoints on ANYTHING, other than where my next meal was coming from.

No, but then I don't think a crow gives a damn if a crow dies. It simply lacks the intelligence.

Higher non-human mammals may experience a few crude emotions based on family, but not at all to the extent that humans do (with the possible exception of dolphins). A bear won't go on mourning the loss of its cub for years.

I don't feel that humans are the crux of creation and above all else. We ARE the top dogs here on earth though, at least for the next few decades.

There are a few other species that perhaps deserve SOME rights based on their intelligence (dolphins, a few of the great apes). However, even these species are far from humans in terms of intelligence.

 

Just because you can't sit down and have a chat over coffee with a grizzly bear doesn't mean Ursus horribilis is not an important and valuable species that deserves rights.

 

perhaps HIGH intelligence isn't the key issue here... i do understand what you're saying, but perhaps bears don't mourn the loss of its cub for years because its intelligence reminds it that that is what existance is all about; no animal fears, questions or analyzes death, yet they protect themselves as a living being to further their chance at life. That shows a higher intelligence to me than the general human population who only protect themselves in fear of death and facing the unknown. An unborn is never given the opportunity to protect itself and further their chance at life before its unaturally taken away.

 

The fact that people find it necessary to argue for the "right" to kill the unborn is just insane.

As a feminist, what I've always found most offensive about the "feminist" movement is its insistence that women's "choice" is whether to kill their children or not, rather than whether to have intercourse in the first place. The implication by these supposed "feminists" is that women are such out-of-control animals, they certainly can't be asked to control their sexual behavior. Rather, we should simply accept that we are not capable of deciding when and when not to become pregnant, and fight for the "right" to rip the developing arms and legs and heads off of babies in the womb. It's insulting - feminists strip women of their power and reduce them to murder - then follow up by justifying this murder with absurd statements about how "fetuses" are "not really alive."

We could argue semantics all day - and we can argue forever about which creatures (human or otherwise) are DESERVING of life. The fact remains that fetuses are INDEED alive. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO "ABORT" THEM. If you didn't kill them, they'd continue to grow and eventually come into the world. Arguing that they aren't alive is just ludicrous.

I'll say again, as progressives, we really need to stop these types of arguments and start fighting the REAL problem. We need to reject the death culture. We - as supposed proponents of nonviolence and protectors of life on this planet - lose all credibility when we put forth stupid claims about living things not really being alive or not really being deserving of life. Even right-wingers aren't stupid enough to believe that living things aren't alive. Sheesh.

 

You're equivocating on the meaning of "alive." Yes, a fetus is "alive" in the biological sense of the word...but so is a mosquito. The biological definitions of these kinds of terms do not and should not apply to the debate over whether or not a fetus is "alive" or "human" in the philosophical sense of being self-aware and therefore entitled to the right to exist.

 

its still the womans choice

 

*nods*

Precisely. It's an embarrassment. Again, if people would think for themselves rather than allowing themselves to be ushered into some narrow, contradictory viewpoint in order to be considered a "liberal" we wouldn't have this deplorable problem.
"Feminists" have the right not to get pregnant, they should focus on that.

 

First posted in the ‘Abortion’ thread Page 48 Post 472 on the October 11th, 2004, writing in response to a line of argument initiated by Kandahar

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6424&page=48&pp=10



"We come back again…

It is strange that this is the ground where not only many of the anti’s but also many of the pro’s feel more comfortable, arguing over what is or isn’t human.

**

Is abortion right or wrong, well I’ll tell you one thing it is repulsive, but then so is war and dropping bombs when it is known that many will kill totally innocent men, women and children. But many of the Christian right that shout the loudest about being against abortion are often the ones that defend such actions as being for the ‘greater good’.

In my view war can be necessary but I also think that all other practical avenues that might avoid it must be explored. The other thing with war is that if it is threatening or is needed then the circumstances and problems that have mean it is imminent have been overlooked or ignored.

So to me if there is a bloody conflict it is it is never glorious and a time for waving flags it is a failure and we should feel collective shamed. I think the same of abortion. But that doesn’t mean I would not necessarily support a war or an abortion.

So like conflict, shouldn’t we be asking why it has got to such a repulsive point? What can we do to limit or stop the seeming necessity of the action.

This is where the anti-abortionist seem to me to show the paucity of their argument which seems to be based on the idea that since they (and in many cases their religion) says it is wrong then it must be stopped. When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas."

**

What to me is the problem is how do we deal realistically with the strong desire there seems to be for abortion.

The anti’s still seem to think that just making abortion illegal will end that desire or make it go away I think that is a fallacy.

Pushed and the anti’s argument seems to be that making abortion illegal will be the first step toward actually starting to help people from getting pregnant with unwanted children in the first place or in looking after them and assisting them in looking any unwanted children that may come along that they would want to keep.

This would involve financial assistance, housing, cheap childcare, better general education and a host of other measures. The only problem as is clear from the past pages is that they seem vague on the details and more importantly the right wing political movements they support seem unlikely to support such measures or are actually hostile to them.

It is my conclusion that these people have as their goal making abortion illegal and all other considerations are at best secondary at worse unimportant. And from what I’ve read, I’m afraid, it seems closer to the latter.